From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25787 invoked by alias); 25 Nov 2004 10:46:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 25762 invoked from network); 25 Nov 2004 10:46:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 25 Nov 2004 10:46:21 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iAPAj6xS016718; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 05:45:11 -0500 Received: from talisman.cambridge.redhat.com (talisman.cambridge.redhat.com [172.16.18.81]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id iAPAiir29058; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 05:44:44 -0500 Received: from talisman.cambridge.redhat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by talisman.cambridge.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.12.10) with ESMTP id iAPAihKR011317; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 10:44:43 GMT Received: (from rsandifo@localhost) by talisman.cambridge.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.12.10/Submit) id iAPAidnC011315; Thu, 25 Nov 2004 10:44:39 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: talisman.cambridge.redhat.com: rsandifo set sender to rsandifo@redhat.com using -f To: "Giovanni Bajo" Cc: "Mike Stump" , "Janis Johnson" , "Mark Mitchell" , Subject: Re: Mainline in regression-fix mode after Thanksgiving References: <200411230026.iAN0QqeO005220@sirius.codesourcery.com> <884E869E-56B9-43AD-ACDD-0F2A47287087@apple.com> <41A29C79.5070803@codesourcery.com> <20041123170139.GA4463@us.ibm.com> <095801c4d180$19e95e40$f503030a@mimas> <0cbe01c4d252$03240520$f503030a@mimas> From: Richard Sandiford Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 12:41:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <0cbe01c4d252$03240520$f503030a@mimas> (Giovanni Bajo's message of "Wed, 24 Nov 2004 19:18:35 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00952.txt.bz2 "Giovanni Bajo" writes: > Mike Stump wrote: >> So, let me ask if anyone who puts in patches would object to having >> regressions assigned to them? If no one objects, I'd say, lets just >> make it policy. > > Any takers? Well, I don't object to anyone doing this for my patches, but I really do think Joe's description of how the assigned field should work is better. For example, if I'm in a bug-fixing mood, the first thing I'll do is search bugzilla for MIPS PRs. And since this is something I do in my spare time, I don't want to waste it by duplicating other people's work. So I'll pick the bugs that aren't yet assigned to anyone. You (Giovanni) say that people could just unassign themselves if they don't plan to look at a PR soon. Although that's clearly the case _in principle_, in practice, this often doesn't happen. There are several target-independent bugs with a MIPS target field that have been assigned (to non-MIPS maintainers) for many months without any apparent action. [No criticism implied, btw. I'm not whiter than white here.] As I think Joe said, if the PR trail already mentions the patch that caused a regression, putting the name of the patch author in the assigned field doesn't add any more information. It actually removes information, because PRs then go into an uncertain "is anyone really going to look at this or not?" state. Richard